Re: Parallell Optimizer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Parallell Optimizer
Date
Msg-id 51B774E1.3090605@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallell Optimizer  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6/7/13 2:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As for other databases, I suspect that ones that have parallel execution
> are probably doing it with a thread model not a process model.

Oracle 9i was multi-process, not multi-threaded. IIRC it actually had dedicated IO processes too; backends didn't do
theirown IO.
 

We certainly need to protect the use case of queries that run in milliseconds, and clearly parallelism won't help there
atall. But we can't ignore the other end of the spectrum; you'd need a LOT of communication overhead to swamp the
benefitsof parallel execution on a multi-minute, CPU-bound query (or in many cases even IO bound).
 
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Liming Hu
Date:
Subject: Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement)